Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

Dan1138 -> Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (7/19/2008 7:43:24 PM)

Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?"



TJO5 -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (7/20/2008 5:57:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan1138

Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?"

Not specifically. But reading the Wikipedia definition of sensus plenior I have heard of the Rabbinical exegesis method PaRDeS ,which recognizes that scripture is written on several different levels. Here is a link to some information about PaRDeS.
While it is obvious from the interpretations of Jesus and other NT writers that there are deeper levels of understanding of scripture I think there is a need for caution when seeking these different levels-there is a need for balance.
This article about sensus plenior was interesting.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.



TheCatholicCrusader -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (7/22/2008 8:52:35 PM)

The so-called sensus plenior (“fuller sense”) is a meaning that goes beyond the words themselves, but is nevertheless based on them. It is really an extension of the literal meaning, and is possible because of the dual authorship of the Bible: one of the authors is in time, but the Other is outside of time and therefore can give a deeper meaning to the human words. This meaning may take centuries to elucidate.

In the words of Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, no. 14): "For the language of the Bible is employed to express . . . many things which are beyond the power and scope of the reason of man - that is to say, divine mysteries and all that is related to them. There is sometimes in such passages a fullness and a hidden depth of meaning [ampliore quadam et reconditiore sententia] which the letter hardly expresses and which laws of interpretation hardly warrant."

Referring to the same phenomenon, Saint Thomas Aquinas comments: "God could have had the hagiographer understand many consequences and applications of his text. But even if he did not, we cannot doubt that the Holy Spirit knew them, who is the main Author of the sacred books." (De Potentia, Q.IV, a.1.c)

One example of the sensus plenior is seen in God's word to the serpent and to Eve after Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed."

This verse literally seems to refer to the opposition between serpents and human beings, while its plenary meaning can extend to something far more profound: the battle between Satan and the human race, and the conquest of Satan by the son of Mary.

Another is the literal meaning of Psalm 118:22, the verse referring to the stone rejected by the builders that has become the cornerstone; at first this verse appears to be an architectural image, but it is applied in a plenary way by Peter to Christ’s rejection by the leaders and elders of the Jews (see Acts 4:11). He is indeed the stone rejected by the builders but he has become the cornerstone of the new people of God.

Because of the profound nature of the sensus plenior and its close relationship with inspiration itself, its existence should be verified by its use in the New Testament or by the Fathers of the Church; the exegete should not invent it on his own.



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (7/24/2008 12:03:33 AM)

Yes. If you would like to see a proposed examples of it see http://idontknownuthin.com

These are examples of shadows of Christ contained in riddles hidden in double entendre. The methods of PaRDeS are used.

They are verifiable. See the tutorial pages.



Dan1138 -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (7/27/2008 5:26:59 PM)

What I have surmised is that this "fuller meaning" or sensus plenior is an allegorical method of bible translation that can get dangerous and lead to error.

1 timothy 6

3If anyone (E)advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with (F)sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine (G)conforming to godliness,

4he is (H)conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in (I)controversial questions and (J)disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

5and constant friction between (K)men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who (L)suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

6(M)But godliness actually is a means of (N)great gain when accompanied by (O)contentment.



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (7/27/2008 6:25:39 PM)

quote:

What I have surmised is that this "fuller meaning" or sensus plenior is an allegorical method of bible translation that can get dangerous and lead to error.



sur·mise (sr-mz)
v. sur·mised, sur·mis·ing, sur·mis·es
v.tr.
To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence.
v.intr.
To make a guess or conjecture.
n.
An idea or opinion based on insufficiently conclusive evidence; a conjecture.


I suggest you look at the evidence.

Here are the proposed rules from the site mentioned. In what way do they permit free-wheeling allegory "that can get dangerous and lead to error"?

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)
6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)



Dan1138 -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (10/25/2008 1:11:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones

quote:

What I have surmised is that this "fuller meaning" or sensus plenior is an allegorical method of bible translation that can get dangerous and lead to error.



sur·mise (sr-mz)
v. sur·mised, sur·mis·ing, sur·mis·es
v.tr.
To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence.
v.intr.
To make a guess or conjecture.
n.
An idea or opinion based on insufficiently conclusive evidence; a conjecture.


I suggest you look at the evidence.

Here are the proposed rules from the site mentioned. In what way do they permit free-wheeling allegory "that can get dangerous and lead to error"?

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)
6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)


I surmize because I am not God. It is obvious that you say that you are beyond "surmizing" because you are specially gifted with shadows and seeing things in scripture that no other saint can see. Now I see darkly as through a glass, but one day in Gods presence I will see clearly, but I can see darkness in your shadows and it hates the light. No more pearls for you.



Bluethread -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (10/25/2008 1:53:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones

Here are the proposed rules from the site mentioned. In what way do they permit free-wheeling allegory "that can get dangerous and lead to error"?

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)


Jots and tittles out of context are nothing more than jots or tittles. In order for communication to take place there must be agreement between the communicating parties regarding definitions. If one side infers meaning merely because that one sees a pattern that is not agreement and is prone to misunderstanding.

quote:

2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)


If one waited for all information before coming to a conclusing, one could not move. Therefore, we make conclusions based on all of the information we have at hand and revise those conclusions when more accurate or complete information becomes clear.

quote:

3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)


Though it is wise to have two or three witnesses and it is necessary for establishing something in a legal proceeding, every word from the mouth of Adonai is true and just. He need not repeat Himself.

quote:

4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)

The Word of Adonai is established forever. That is the nature of Adonai. It's representation in writing is a shadow of His character. However, as a shadow can be stretched or faded based on the relationship of the object to the light and the intensity of that light, our understanding of Adonai's true nature as derived from the written word can be corrupted by any mishandling of those writings.

Also, as stated above infering meaning from a pattern or out of context can lead to misunderstanding and if that misunderstanding is made into a principle that is applied to all of the Scriptures, that can lead to apostacy.

quote:

5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)


I am not familiar with the riddle of Samson, but I have had someone show me some interesting parallels between him and the Messiah. That said, if one judges on appearance one can quickly be drawn astray. I would keep parallels at the third or fourth level of supporting evidence. I believe best evidence is best manuscripts, then literal, grammatical and historical context, then logic. Only after applying these tools would I consider imagry and parallels as formsof clarification.

quote:

6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)



Best manuscripts are indeed best evidence. However, as stated above, it is the actual Word we seek and not the shadows. The Scriptures are not a complete representation of Adonai, therefore it is necessary to seek the whole council of Adonai (the Scriptures, the Spirit and the chosen) in order to obtain true understanding. Also, not all riddles need to be solved and sometimes it is better to look at the shadow than be blinded by the eclipse.



1love1God1way -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (10/26/2008 1:16:01 AM)

When I think of sensor plenor, I think of Jesus saying, "You have heard it said . . . but I tell you this . . ."



kelman -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (10/30/2008 2:48:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones

1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology)
4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)
6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)
Addressing your #4 point, I would disagree somewhat. While its true generally the shadow remains the same, it doesn't always. Along the lines of the exception proves the rule, perhaps. For example, water can be seen to be life saving or life destroying as in the flood of Noah killled everyone save eight. We have, otoh, water representing the Holy Spirit as in John 7:28 "..living water". The sea is often used to describe destruction.

In any event, I think you quite correct. Scripture is written on at least three levels. The first would be the historical. The Bible gives us the accurate account of events and conversations which actually occurred in history.

The second level of meaning concerns moral and spiritual teachings. When we view a particular historical event in the light of the commandments of God, we can see an example of an application of God's law.

The third level of meaning relates to the Gospel of salvation. This is the dominant and most important message of the Bible. The whole Bible is, in fact, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do agree, though, with those who see a danger. But, if done faithfully, without trying to force meanings into verses and using only the Bible in its entirety, we can find another level of knowledge and awe within Scripture.

Along the lines of "danger", I'm reminded of Origen(an ECF) who used a similar method of hermeneutic; but, went off the deep end into fanciful thinking not substantiated by Scirpture.



DaveW -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (10/30/2008 1:29:54 PM)

So when does "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Matt 2.15) fit into the plain meaning of Hosea 11.1?

Even scripture itself uses some "strange" ways of intrepreting itself.



kelman -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/3/2008 2:22:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

So when does "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Matt 2.15) fit into the plain meaning of Hosea 11.1?

Even scripture itself uses some "strange" ways of intrepreting itself.
I agree Scripture can interpret itself strangly sometimes; but, Hosea 11:1 and Mat 2:15 seem fairly straightforward. God called both the Lord Jesus and the nation of Israel out of Egypt so the plain historical fact of one was a prophecy for the plain historical fact of the other.

On another level, Egypt is seen as a picture of the kingdom of Satan in Scripture. It was necessary for Israel to come out of Egypt to establish itself as a nation and a picture of the kingdom of God. And, of course, it was necessary for the Son of God to come out of Egypt to establish His messiahship and begin His ministry since He was sent to the lost house of Israel.

Do you find something particularly "strange" with how the two passages relate to each other?



Dan1138 -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/7/2008 6:40:09 PM)

Hosea 11:1 and Matt 2:15 speak to how God calls us his children out of the kingdom of darkness and into salvation. Hosea bought his bride many times and so has Adonai, Jehova/YHWH, Christ. He is not yet done buying his bride. Praise God for eyes of faith!



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/8/2008 8:24:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman
Addressing your #4 point, I would disagree somewhat. While its true generally the shadow remains the same, it doesn't always. Along the lines of the exception proves the rule, perhaps. For example, water can be seen to be life saving or life destroying as in the flood of Noah killled everyone save eight. We have, otoh, water representing the Holy Spirit as in John 7:28 "..living water". The sea is often used to describe destruction.




I am glad that you use this example. In the discernment of shadows, such an observation means we don't yet have the clear picture until in all places it is the same.

Consider:
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

This is a definition 'witness'. The same as "Life is in the blood" so blood = life.

So if in the shadows 'water' is the 'word'. It fits in all places. Not only did the flood destroy all people, but the water of the flood saved people too:
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The same water destroys and saves. This is also the case for fire. The same fire purifies gold and silver but burns wood, hay and stubble. The same Christ is judge and priest, condemning and saving. The two trees in the garden are the same tree and the same Christ. If you approach Him in faith he is the Tree of Life. If you approach Him in disobedience and rebellion, He is the tree of death.

So water is not "life saving" in some places and "destruction" in others. It is the Word in all cases. We get a layered interpretation because we also know that Christ is the Word, and Christ is also the water. So what applies to water, applies to Christ.



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/8/2008 8:51:33 PM)

If you stick with rule #4 it will separate shadow from allegory.



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/10/2008 6:59:25 PM)

quote:

I surmize because I am not God. It is obvious that you say that you are beyond "surmizing" because you are specially gifted with shadows and seeing things in scripture that no other saint can see. Now I see darkly as through a glass, but one day in Gods presence I will see clearly, but I can see darkness in your shadows and it hates the light. No more pearls for you.


All I have ever asked is that people examine the evidence before they "surmise" that it is allegory. I am not sure why you insist on guessing before seeing the evidence or if you have looked at the evidence, refuse to discuss it directly rather than make such false accusations. It is false because I have made it clear that others can see the shadows, and that even children in our fellowship can see them. I have further made it plain that it does not take special gifting, and that I have posted sufficient information for anyone who examines them to verify and even discern them for themselves.

Furthermore, I have also made it plain that I am submitting them for others to critique. It is a shame that you are so insecure that you cannot intelligently and rationally discuss something that is different from what you have seen before.

My greatest desire is that others will see them for themselves and even correct my observations should they need it. So please keep your pearls.

By the way, do you know the difference between an observation and a doctrine? I have always submitted the shadows as observations. For you to make me claim more than that is disingenuous at best.



kelman -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/11/2008 2:30:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman
Addressing your #4 point, I would disagree somewhat. While its true generally the shadow remains the same, it doesn't always. Along the lines of the exception proves the rule, perhaps. For example, water can be seen to be life saving or life destroying as in the flood of Noah killled everyone save eight. We have, otoh, water representing the Holy Spirit as in John 7:28 "..living water". The sea is often used to describe destruction.

I am glad that you use this example. In the discernment of shadows, such an observation means we don't yet have the clear picture until in all places it is the same.

Consider:
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

This is a definition 'witness'. The same as "Life is in the blood" so blood = life.

So if in the shadows 'water' is the 'word'. It fits in all places. Not only did the flood destroy all people, but the water of the flood saved people too:
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
I see your point here. Noah preached God's word to the people and it brought destruction to them. Yet, to Noah and his family the word brought life. As you said, "the same water destroys and saves".

Paul brings the same message in 2Cor 2:15-16 concerning the preaching of the Gospel..."For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life..."

quote:

This is also the case for fire. The same fire purifies gold and silver but burns wood, hay and stubble.
God also used the offering by fire as a symbol of cleansing from sin. Fire, or the "coals of fire" seen in Rom 12:20 represent the salvation provided by Christ because He endured the fires of hell. Christ is the "burnt offering" and those for whom He was offered(the gold and silver) are purified by His sacrifice. Those for whom He was not offered(the wood, hay, stubble) must personally endure the "fires" of hell.

quote:

So water is not "life saving" in some places and "destruction" in others. It is the Word in all cases. We get a layered interpretation because we also know that Christ is the Word, and Christ is also the water. So what applies to water, applies to Christ.
It is the Word of God(water) which is "life saving" for some and brings "destruction" to others.



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/13/2008 8:46:40 PM)

You have got it. Now that you understand the rules that limit the meaning, are you comfortable with how to discern the double meaning of words?

The 32 rules of rabbi Eliezer can be summarized as such:
1. All the meanings for a word available by the Hebrew of Greek dictionary are available for double entendre.
2. All the meanings for the homographs are also available. A homograph is a word with the same consonants as the word. Early Hebrew did not have vowels. So they are the same symbol with a different meaning.
3. All the meanings of a pun are available. Puns can be words that verbally sound alike but may be spelled differently, in English a substitution of a v and f or p and b can produce puns. I don't use these much in the shadows, but Elohim has a pun meaning 'the not dark'.
4. Look at the words that share the root for a flavor of the word.


Also a shadow known from other pictures may be reused.

The most difficult part to grasp is that context may be shared across linked verses. Verses are linked by sharing a word. Don't worry that this may cause large amounts of available meaning. All pictures are of Christ, and that knowledge filters out most of it naturally.

An example is with 'left' and 'right'. Sheep go right and goats go left, therefore when you are to let your light shine before men, but not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, it says...

Don't let your sheep hand know what your goat hand is doing... well that's silly, but the sheep are the heavenly and the goats are the earthly,
so it is better said, Don't let your earthly hand know what your heavenly side is doing. Now meditate upon it for full understanding.

Something like: Don't claim credit for the good works that God has you do. I am excited for you as you discover them for yourself.



kelman -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/16/2008 2:47:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones
The 32 rules of rabbi Eliezer can be summarized as such:
1. All the meanings for a word available by the Hebrew of Greek dictionary are available for double entendre.
2. All the meanings for the homographs are also available. A homograph is a word with the same consonants as the word. Early Hebrew did not have vowels. So they are the same symbol with a different meaning.
3. All the meanings of a pun are available. Puns can be words that verbally sound alike but may be spelled differently, in English a substitution of a v and f or p and b can produce puns. I don't use these much in the shadows, but Elohim has a pun meaning 'the not dark'.
4. Look at the words that share the root for a flavor of the word.
If I understand you correctly, I'm not sure I agree. Concerning #1, I don't think all definitions of Greek and Hebrew words lend themselves to double meanings. The Bible is its own dictionary so we can know the meaning by seeing how it is used elsewhere in Scripture.

I don't see how rules #2 and 3 help toward understanding Scripture; but, I do agree with #4.

quote:

Also a shadow known from other pictures may be reused.
What do you mean by "resused"?

quote:

The most difficult part to grasp is that context may be shared across linked verses. Verses are linked by sharing a word. Don't worry that this may cause large amounts of available meaning. All pictures are of Christ, and that knowledge filters out most of it naturally.
I agree verses may be linked by a shared word but generally only insofar as to understand the meaning of a particular word. Can we say all types and shadows are of Christ? What of Nebuchadnezzar?....he would be a type of Satan. And isn't Israel's deliverance from Egypt a type or shadow of the believer's deliverance from the bondage of Satan and sin?

quote:

An example is with 'left' and 'right'. Sheep go right and goats go left, therefore when you are to let your light shine before men, but not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, it says...

Don't let your sheep hand know what your goat hand is doing... well that's silly, but the sheep are the heavenly and the goats are the earthly,
so it is better said, Don't let your earthly hand know what your heavenly side is doing. Now meditate upon it for full understanding.
When Scripture speaks of not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, as in Mat 6:3, it's really just speaking of secrecy, iow, don't broadcast your good deeds. And to sit at the "right hand" would mean to be closest to power and authority - one of great honor. Would this be an example of a "reused" metaphor?



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/16/2008 4:27:10 AM)

quote:

If I understand you correctly, I'm not sure I agree. Concerning #1, I don't think all definitions of Greek and Hebrew words lend themselves to double meanings. The Bible is its own dictionary so we can know the meaning by seeing how it is used elsewhere in Scripture.


1. All the meanings for a word available by the Hebrew of Greek dictionary are available for double entendre.

You didn't say what I said. I said that what is in the dictionary is available. The Bible is not a dictionary. Plain and simple. You need a dictionary because Hebrew isn't your first language. I am glad you mentioned this. Some translations are better than others for finding shadows. In Hebrew, one word is used for leprosy, whether it is on a person or in a house. When the English uses different words, you don't know that they are linked topics. The Bible is a source for the shadow ciphers as mentioned below.

quote:

I don't see how rules #2 and 3 help toward understanding Scripture;


That's why I have given you many examples to demonstrate it.

quote:

What do you mean by "resused"?


The rules say that a shadow is the same everywhere. So if you have discerned correctly that a donkey is a prophet in one scripture, and you have a donkey in another scripture, it's still a prophet.

Start with the examples I have given, and rather than just browsing them, trace the origin to the dictionary or a shadow. Verbalize the riddle and see that it is solved in Christ. I have made the claim that the shadows are verifiable. Verify a few to get the hang of it before tackling one on your own.

"I disagree" is not a legitimate critique. You may show that something I say came from the dictionary didn't come from the dictionary. Or you can say that a shadow I have used in one place is different than where I used it elsewhere. But it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of a claim that can be verified or not.

There are some errors on the web site. Everything is tentative until they are verified. I am hoping that others will be able to correct my errors. One of the rules says that we can't be certain until all of the scriptures agree. So I still have a lot of work to do before I am ready to say I am certain about them. I use the wiki as a live notepad during study, so my initial impressions as I am flushing them out are evident, and the history of the thought process is retained in the wiki history. So I am showing you the raw thought process in discerning them as best I can.

quote:

Can we say all types and shadows are of Christ?


Good question. Since I haven't done the whole Bible yet, I couldn't say for sure. And since there are possibly four layers, not just two, then there is much more that I don't know than what I do know. All I can say is that everywhere I have tried it, everything contributed to a picture of Christ. Now I have already said that a donkey is a prophet. The female donkey that leads Christ into Jerusalem represents the Old Testament prophets who did not see clearly. The male colt represents John the Baptist. So don't misunderstand me by saying that every detail is Christ. The two donkeys help paint the picture of Christ in the larger context of the narrative.

When speaking of Christ as a prophet, he is referred to as the wild donkey. (Unbridled).

Having said that, since the OT prophets were shadows of Christ, and John also is a type of Christ, we could go and say that Christ led Christ sitting on Christ, and are reminded that "Christ is all in all". Gen 1.1 reduces to "In Christ, Christ separated the dual natured Christ" as a shadow of the cross. Sorry. I can only sit in awe of it myself.

quote:

What of Nebuchadnezzar?....he would be a type of Satan. And isn't Israel's deliverance from Egypt a type or shadow of the believer's deliverance from the bondage of Satan and sin?


No. No. You are mixing traditional allegory with shadow. It might be good allegory, but allegory is unverifiable. If Neb were a type of Satan, why was he given his kingdom back? I have yet to find Satan in the shadows at all.

quote:

When Scripture speaks of not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, as in Mat 6:3, it's really just speaking of secrecy, iow, don't broadcast your good deeds.


How do you know this? I know that this is popular belief, but what is it's origin? (Rhetorical - there are no defining scriptures. ) I once traced at several different interpretations from well known preachers on this very subject.

quote:

And to sit at the "right hand" would mean to be closest to power and authority - one of great honor. Would this be an example of a "reused" metaphor?


This is not normal typology, nor is it allegory*, nor is it metaphor. You might think of them as substitution ciphers in cryptography that reveal a riddle. The answer to the riddle is Christ. If you think like a spy rather than an English teacher you will get farther.

The Hebrew and Greek dictionaries are the source for some substitutions, and the unpublished book of shadows is the other. After that it is all riddle.

*Some allegory is really undocumented shadows. In the garden, the garments are often seen as works. This is really shadow, not allegory.



kelman -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/18/2008 4:21:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones
1. All the meanings for a word available by the Hebrew of Greek dictionary are available for double entendre.

You didn't say what I said. I said that what is in the dictionary is available. The Bible is not a dictionary. Plain and simple. You need a dictionary because Hebrew isn't your first language. I am glad you mentioned this. Some translations are better than others for finding shadows. In Hebrew, one word is used for leprosy, whether it is on a person or in a house. When the English uses different words, you don't know that they are linked topics. The Bible is a source for the shadow ciphers as mentioned below.
I didn't say the Bible was "a" dictionary, I said it is its own dictionary. There's a difference. In the case of "leprosy" where does the English use different words? From what I can see it is always translated leprosy. So what would its "double" meaning be?

quote:

quote:

What do you mean by "resused"?
The rules say that a shadow is the same everywhere. So if you have discerned correctly that a donkey is a prophet in one scripture, and you have a donkey in another scripture, it's still a prophet.
The donkey of Exodus 13:13 would be a believer. And surely sometimes a donkey's just donkey?

quote:

"I disagree" is not a legitimate critique. You may show that something I say came from the dictionary didn't come from the dictionary. Or you can say that a shadow I have used in one place is different than where I used it elsewhere. But it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of a claim that can be verified or not.
It's a legitimate critique when I don't think the pariticular "rule" does anything to advance the understanding Scripture. The example you gave of Tamar as a shadow of Mary, I don't see. The Jordan River and the Red Sea are pictures of salvation and destruction so in that sense we see Christ or the Gospel message.

quote:

quote:

Can we say all types and shadows are of Christ?
Good question. Since I haven't done the whole Bible yet, I couldn't say for sure. And since there are possibly four layers, not just two, then there is much more that I don't know than what I do know. All I can say is that everywhere I have tried it, everything contributed to a picture of Christ. Now I have already said that a donkey is a prophet. The female donkey that leads Christ into Jerusalem represents the Old Testament prophets who did not see clearly. The male colt represents John the Baptist. So don't misunderstand me by saying that every detail is Christ. The two donkeys help paint the picture of Christ in the larger context of the narrative.
I agree not every detail is of Christ; but, otoh, the Gospel can be found everywhere in the OT. Although, sometimes it takes much work to do so since, as you say, it can be quite veiled.

quote:

Having said that, since the OT prophets were shadows of Christ, and John also is a type of Christ, we could go and say that Christ led Christ sitting on Christ, and are reminded that "Christ is all in all". Gen 1.1 reduces to "In Christ, Christ separated the dual natured Christ" as a shadow of the cross. Sorry. I can only sit in awe of it myself.
Genesis 1:2,3,4 anticipates God's salvation program.

quote:

quote:

What of Nebuchadnezzar?....he would be a type of Satan. And isn't Israel's deliverance from Egypt a type or shadow of the believer's deliverance from the bondage of Satan and sin?
No. No. You are mixing traditional allegory with shadow. It might be good allegory, but allegory is unverifiable. If Neb were a type of Satan, why was he given his kingdom back? I have yet to find Satan in the shadows at all.
This world is Satan's kingdom, at least until the consummation. In Dan 5:20, we see his "heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride.." very Satan-lile. And Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus who is a picture of Christ(Isa 44:28). In Isa 14 we see him speaking of the King of Babylon and immediately begin speaking about Lucifer. There's much symbolism indicating Neb was a picture of Satan.

quote:

quote:

When Scripture speaks of not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, as in Mat 6:3, it's really just speaking of secrecy, iow, don't broadcast your good deeds.
How do you know this? I know that this is popular belief, but what is it's origin? (Rhetorical - there are no defining scriptures. ) I once traced at several different interpretations from well known preachers on this very subject.
The context actually say this is the meaning of left/right hand. "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee,....But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:...That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

quote:

quote:

And to sit at the "right hand" would mean to be closest to power and authority - one of great honor. Would this be an example of a "reused" metaphor?
This is not normal typology, nor is it allegory*, nor is it metaphor.
Then, we can simply say it is symbolic. There's no doubt that "right hand" also represents power and authority....Exodus 15:6 "Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy."

quote:

You might think of them as substitution ciphers in cryptography that reveal a riddle.
I simply look for types/shadows/pictures/representations of God's salvation messages throughout all of Scripture.....nothing quite as exotic as "substitution ciphers in cryptography".



rcjones -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/19/2008 10:46:09 PM)

quote:

I simply look for types/shadows/pictures/representations of God's salvation messages throughout all of Scripture.....nothing quite as exotic as "substitution ciphers in cryptography".


This is why we do not agree. You are using allegory. I am addressing the OP about sensus plenior which is verifiable using the rules that you disagree with. But you aren't attempting to verify them, just compare them to your allegory. You can't mix them.

Should you decide to actually attempt to verify them using the rules, drop me a note. We could have a much more fruitful conversation then.

Thanks.



kelman -> RE: Has anyone heard of Sensus Plenior or "fuller meaning?" (11/20/2008 4:11:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones

quote:

I simply look for types/shadows/pictures/representations of God's salvation messages throughout all of Scripture.....nothing quite as exotic as "substitution ciphers in cryptography".


This is why we do not agree. You are using allegory. I am addressing the OP about sensus plenior which is verifiable using the rules that you disagree with. But you aren't attempting to verify them, just compare them to your allegory. You can't mix them.

Should you decide to actually attempt to verify them using the rules, drop me a note. We could have a much more fruitful conversation then.

Thanks.
Apparently, you hold a different understanding of "sensus plenior". As far as I know it simply means to search for the "deeper meaning" of the passage. This is done by means of allegory, shadows, types and figures.

Your rules may be of help to you; but, they are not the only method with which to search for the deeper meaning of a verse. Paul, himself uses the word allegory in Gal 4.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI